Powered by TypePad

« Meanwhile, Back In Iraq | Main | Milbloggers On DADT »

May 12, 2010

Comments

ignatz

If I, a socially and fiscally very conservative, happily married, heterosexual, evangelical Christian, don't care what, if anything, this woman puts between her legs I'm left wondering why anyone else does.
I'm more concerned with what's between her ears. Most of the evidence I've seen so far would indicate a fairly porous mix of concrete, which, considering her political persuasion, may not be a bad thing.

Thomas Collins

I hope Solicitor General Kagan has a sense of humor, as discussion about her devolves to the level of discussion about Lindsay Lohan's smooch preferences.

In my view, Mike McConnell is the clear choice for SCOTUS Justice if one desires a real Justice. Kagan in my view is in the middle of the pack of the aspirants to Justice as Superlegislator status. However, I think Kagan deserves better than to have her nomination turn into a bleating exercise about gay- or hetero- or bi-hood.

MarkO

Let's think about this another way, WWTD (What would Teddy do?)
Why must conservatives always be so polite, so circumspect. Obama voted against Roberts on the thinnest possible grounds.
I suppose Obama could nominate worse, but I thiink he must believe she is the worst or he would have.

This is the crew that has nationalized health care and federalized employment. Kagan has little to say on her record, but she seems to be in favor of Obama's prime interest: suppression of freedom of expression and dissemination of ideas.

If they can ask Thomas about pubic hair, everything becomes relevant. Not to mention Bork.

This is not to say I believe this is how the battle should be conducted in a better world, but we are not in that world and we did not chose these weapons first.

Where's Carswell when you need a good nominee?

Rob Crawford

Sorry for the OT, but LUN is IBD on the fed lust to steal your retirement savings.

jimmyk

With the shameful exception of Clarence Thomas, the Dem attacks on Bork and other Republican nominees have generally been about their views, not about their private lives--though I seem to recall they went as far as obtaining video rental records on someone (Bork?) in their efforts. (And of course they were not shy about completely misrepresenting the nominees' views.)

It seems to me there's enough to ask her about regarding her views and previous writings on the commerce clause, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 10th amendment, etc. The Republicans should be very aggressive in questioning her on all that, but there's no good reason to delve into her sex life.

Clarice

Now, if only we could find a real lawyer on the committee to do the questioning....

Cecil Turner
The rumor about Kagan has circulated for months on gay blogs and became a matter of controversy when it was cited as fact by a conservative blogger on the website of CBS News, drawing a sharp White House rebuttal.
Hey, this is new to me. I thought Queerty had it right, and that she was openly gay, just not to reporters. (That's also what the e-board guys (gals?) were saying back when.) If that's not the case, it's hard to see how this all got started. Except the above is clearly wrong, in that it started in the gay activist community, not as a conservative smear.

In any event, though, once the White House communications folks say something about a SCOTUS nominee (i.e., "she's not gay"), that needs to be true. Or the record needs to be corrected. This is no longer merely an identity politics reference issue.

Sue

The freaking news to me is there is a conservative blogger at CBS News.

Danube of Thought

It surprised me that the WH made a comment one way or another, since they couldn't possibly know the answer definitively. I believe it was a mistake for them to make an unequivocal statement.

I'll ask again: suppose she says "I'm gay, but I'll recuse myself on matters involving gay rights." Should she still be opposed on the grounds of her sexuality?

One plus for her confirmation might be that she would feel compelled to recuse herself on cases involving Obamacare's constitutionality.

centralcal

I'm with Sue - who, pray tell, is the conservative blogger at CBS???

Appalled

Rob Crawford:

The idea that the federal government is going to swoop in and swipe your k plan balance has been a meme that has been floating around since the IRS issued the following request for information I have put in the LUN. If you have evidence (other than paranoia, which, respectfully, is all the IBD editorial is) that Obama will propose legislation mandating 401(k) funds be transferred to the government, please expound on it.

Captain Hate

I suppose Obama could nominate worse, but I thiink he must believe she is the worst or he would have.

I disagree with this because I believe that the nomination of a blank slate lefty with minimal paper trail is an acknowledgement, albeit in his typically obtuse way, of his diminished approval ratings. Put another way, there's no way the dumbass diabetic would be the present nominee.

Cecil Turner

I'm with Sue - who, pray tell, is the conservative blogger at CBS???

Ben Domenech

boris

My question to App ... why should we object (if at all) to the Obama guv offering a federal annuity deal too good to pass up?

Cecil Turner

I'll ask again: suppose she says "I'm gay, but I'll recuse myself on matters involving gay rights."

I think that's a terrible answer. I'd vastly prefer to hear: "I'm not gay" or "I'm gay" (whichever is true), or "none of your business" (which I would assume to be the latter, but might be the former). In any event, the decision to support or not is a political one and could be made on the basis of this or any other judgment (or prejudice for that matter). Out of 100 votes, I'd think the prejudices would probably come out more or less a wash.

centralcal

Thanks, Cecil - I had forgotten about Domenech.

daddy

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of picking Lawyers who worship Big Government and intrinsically despise the Military, we actually picked a Lawyer with actual military experience who likes the Military and intrinsically despises Big Government.

Appalled

boris:

As a taxpayer, I would object, as the government has too many unfunded liabilities as it is. As exemplified by the healthcare debate, the Democrats have no clue on how to price a penalty or incentive to drive desired behavior.

As a 401(k) participant, I might look at the option -- particularly if I were expecting a long life following my retirement.

Cecil Turner

You're welcome cc. I tracked down these rumors in the last couple hours and had it handy.

Speaking of which, I need to get some exercise. (Especially if I'm going to be sitting around with popcorn in the near future.) Cheerio.

Thomas Collins

Appalled, I appreciate the point that solicitation of comments on how DOL and IRS rules could facilitate annuitization of retirement accounts does not in itself indicate that a grab of retirement accounts is imminent. However, I am concerned, and I don't think the concern results from paranoia. I think that the strain of statism has infected enough Dems so that seizure of retirement accounts could be on the table in the future. Thus, I think warnings by opponents that this is unacceptable are appropriate.

Modern day Argentina didn't happen overnight, but it happened.

Of course, Appalled, if you insist that I am paranoid, keep in mind that the fact that a person is paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get that person. :-))

boris

App ... fair enough.

As a 401(k) (or IRA) participant we may not have a realistic choice. The first adopters get full value ... late adopters and holdouts get crashed.

Rob Crawford

Appalling, your deep trust in the good intentions of government are noted.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for another reason to buy from Arizona businesses.

Rob Crawford

BTW, Appalling, the current crop in Congress aren't noted for their restraint or their belief in self-government. The "health care" abomination is one example, another is this:


And the ['financial reform'] bill is getting worse by the minute. Sen. Kay Hagan is preparing an amendment that will create another national database to track and approve or disapprove individual installment loans. Yes, you heard that right. Under the Hagan amendment, individual citizens would need the approval of the Federal government before taking out an installment loan.

Hagan’s amendment would limit consumers to no more than six and as few as one loan per year during a 12-month period for “covered” loans which include even some retail company credit plans. So for example, if a consumer uses Home Depot’s installment plan to buy a washing machine, he better pray the dishwasher doesn’t break because under Hagan’s amendment our consumer may not be able to buy a dishwasher (or anything else) for 275 days.

Of course, Hagan’s amendment exempts big banks and “traditional lenders” from these provisions.

(Source LUN)

So go bury your accusations of paranoia in a bucket under a pile of manure.

Danube of Thought

I'd vastly prefer to hear: "I'm not gay" or "I'm gay" (whichever is true), or "none of your business" (which I would assume to be the latter, but might be the former).

Regardless of what you would prefer to hear, would you oppose her nomination on the grounds that she is gay if she established that she would hear no cases involving gay rights?

Danube of Thought

By what authority could the government seize 401(k)'s?

boris

Doubt they need authority to simply force surrender. Use it or lose it.

Rob Crawford

By what authority could the government seize 401(k)'s?

The same one they use in telling us we have to purchase health insurance, and to regulate the amount of salt in food.

Namely, the "you can't stop us" authority.

Pofarmer

More weirdness around Obama's birth certificate.

LUN.

Neo
The rumors that Kagan is gay, Walzer said, were current before she became a public figure, and a source of frustration to Kagan and her friends – who were frustrated by their persistence, but worried that denying them could imply some anti-gay prejudice.
What kind of prejudice is that .. perhaps that gays are too stupid to figure not that she isn't ? .. or is it that they just wanted to string the gay community along ?

It seems like they still want to do the "Obama thing" and leave everybody guessing (hey, it got Obama the Kenyan vote).

Clarice

DoT It's from the Dodds and Rangels and Kerrys and Kennedys know what's good for you proviso--the one behind the individual mandate.

Boatbuilder

I will go out on a limb and predict that: a) There will be no questions bout her sexual orientation during the hearings; b) all and sundry will agree, in appropriate tones, that her sexual orientation is nobody's business and, besides, she's straight; c) she will be confirmed; and d)in about a year or so she will come out of the closet and we'll all be hearing about how proud we all are of the first openly gay justice of the Supreme Court.

ignatz

--By what authority could the government seize 401(k)'s?--

Presumably the same one they used to set up a "pension" system whereby they seize 15% of my income and ostensibly sock it away for my retirement but in fact give it to current retirees or give me an IOU and spend it on Nancy Pelosi's pet projects.

Clarice

Po--I said so the other day-He's twins. The bad twin was sent to live in Ct.

Porchlight

Sounds about right to me, Boatbuilder.

ignatz

--and d)in about a year or so she will come out of the closet and we'll all be hearing about how proud we all are of the first openly gay justice of the Supreme Court.--

A more likely outcome is the National Enquirer will shock the nation and create a giant scandal by finding a man who actually had heterosexual sex with her.
We can only pray there is no video.

Janet

Pofarmer, that ss# link was interesting ...thanks.

fdcol63

This country won't be fully "representative" until we have a justice and/or president who is a black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim transgendered redneck from Alabama who also happens to be blind, physically challenged, and developmentally disabled.

Janet

Dennis Miller made some inappropriate comment about her looking like Fred in Wilma's clothes.

Janet

Ya-ba-da-ba-du!...no video indeed.

Thomas Collins

DOT, I think under current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Congress could reasonably believe that the seizing of retirement accounts would have a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to justify the taking. The issue would then become whether the annuitization is "just compensation" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, thus justifying the taking of private property.

Thomas Collins

Anyone heard from Jane or caro?

Danube of Thought

I suppose that if they purported to do it under the takings clause, they wouldn't have to bother with the commerce clause. I doubt that the courts would allow it, but they disappoint me very regularly.

I think the FICA tax falls within the power granted by the 16th Amendment, but I doubt this grab would fit there.

Thomas Collins

Looks as if the Massachusetts State Senate seat once held by Scott Brown remains in the GOP column. See LUN.

daddy

Po,

Interesting story on Obama's peculiar SSN. If this story develops legs, it will be interesting to see if whomever is doing this investigation of Obama's Social Security Number is rendered the same leniency as was given to the two opposition researchers working for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee who obtained copies of a confidential credit report on Maryland’s Republican lieutenant governor, via illegally accessing Steele's SSN.

Schumer and the ACLU as I recall were strangely silent in that case.

Thomas Collins

DOT, I stand corrected by your 2:40 PM post. I agree that if SCOTUS (I am assuming the challenge would go all the way up to SCOTUS) decided that the seizing of private retirement accounts was for a valid public use under the Fifth Amendment, and that the annuitization constituted just compensation for the seizure, there would be no separate Commerce Clause analysis.

Thomas Collins

I suppose they could impose confiscatory taxes on private retirement accounts and provide folks the "option" of annuitization to avoid those confiscatory taxes.

But I realize this is all paranoia from people who think that in today's America, 10 year old girls will be sent to detention for possessing candy, and students will be suspended for celebrating the American flag in school

jimmyk

O/T but a great example of politically motivated innumeracy at the NYTimes:

"Minorities Frisked More but Arrested at Same Rate"

As a number of commenters point out, in fact minorities are arrested at a much higher rate relative to their population. Roughly 6 percent of those frisked in each group get arrested, which is exactly what should happen if the police are not discriminating but using the same standards for both blacks and whites.

This, incidentally, is the same "logic" that helped cause the financial crisis: the claim that minorities were being discriminated against because they got turned down more often for loans. The key is whether their default rates were different.

daddy

"Anyone heard from Jane or caro?"

I have not TC, but the very latest post up at ">http://corner.nationalreview.com/"> The Corner is from Jay Nordlinger who mentions he is cruising in Portugal and having fun, so I suspect our girls are still out of the pokey.

Thomas Collins

Thanks, daddy. I hope the folks got their stuff back.

bgates

I'd edit Boatbuilder's predictions to include
a1) During the hearings, Kagan gives plainly contradictory answers to consecutive questions from a Republican Senator, prompting the questioner to note, "Ma'am, with all due respect, I don't think you're being entirely straight with us on this point".
a2) The clip of "I don't think you're being entirely straight" is used as the basis for sweeps week on The Daily Show, from whence it propagates to less serious news programs like This Week and Anderson Cooper's show.
a3) CBS plays the audio clip during a phone poll of college students, leading to the headline "Republican Homophobia Craters College Support".
a4) Comedy Central announces their new surefire hit, "You're Not Being Entirely Straight". The show consists of pictures of elected Republicans, tea partiers, and Jesus Christ photoshopped to look like they're wearing pink ballgowns and tiaras, while host Will Farrell and the studio audience shout "Fag! Cocksucker!"
But they're hipsters, so it's cool when they do it.

Melinda Romanoff

DoT-

It will be draped in the wrapper of "Social Security Reform", and as Ignatz and rse, will attest to, it's been George Miller's dream for years.

Teresa Gilharducci, expert witnees and author of the $600 credit, per year, for ALL your IRA and 401(k) assets.

They have until Labor Day to try and grab the assets.

If you want more, I'll load you up later.

ignatz

--I think the FICA tax falls within the power granted by the 16th Amendment, but I doubt this grab would fit there.--

I agree the taxation portion of SS is less problematic, but what the tax is levied for, a national mandatory pension plan,I have labored in vain many times trying to find any constitutional authorization for.
And with the precedent of SS it is a very small stretch for a statist from imposing a mandatory pension plan to nationalizing private ones, especially quasi private ones which are already regulated and tax deferred by the very same feds.

Boatbuilder

...I was getting to those, bgates.

Right you are.

Thomas Collins

Mel, why do you think they only have until Labor Day? Couldn't a lame duck "prog bucket list" Congress come back and pass all the statist dream bills after the November elections?

Neo

Talk about “code words” … here I never knew that playing softball or an image of playing softball was code for “gay” and obviously some derogatory “gay code word” at that.

As for the “Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?” reference, "bowling" is obvious a code word for “not gay” (good to know).

So today I determined that if you are a homophobe, gays don’t bowl or at least they stay in the closet while they bowl.

I suggest that Kagan go bowling .. and take Barack along .. he needs the practice.

Melinda Romanoff

Wouldn't rule that out either, TC. Just a busy summer is most likely, especially in the cloud of stimulus money sudenly filling the air with the strains of "Good King Democrat" as we head into the traditional Labor Day launch of the Congressional campaign.

daddy

bgates,

Since ">http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-News-Examiner~y2010m5d5-Is-May-really-National-Masturbation-Month"> May is National Masturbation Month, perhaps a wiser tact might be for some Senator to simply ask her opinion on that important issue, and see where the questioning leads.

daddy

Has David Brooks mentioned the lack of crease in her sweatpants in that Softball Photo, and what that portends as to whether she'll be a mediocre Supreme Court Justice?

Dave (in MA)

Oh, great. CBS hires a token conservative to run a blog for them and who do they pick? A noted plagiarist.

I don't really care whether Judge Blart is a lesbian or not, but I'm enjoying the whole DADT irony part.

Appalled

DoT:

401(k) plans are creatures of the tax code. To accomplish a goverment takeover of k-plan assets, a condition of the tax-exempt status of the plan could be the investment in some government security or bundle of securities.

This would require legislation, which I don't see passing. But, theoretically, that's how what you guys fear could be done, without violating the Constitution.

Melinda Romanoff

Appalled-

Could you see it passing if it's sold as the only way to save a broken Social Security system?

Neo

I thought there was going to be some sort of "consumer protection" thing in the financial reform.

Just how can they get a "takeover" of 401 programs past the "consumer protection" agency when they are trying to suck you into an obvious "Ponzi scheme" ?

Appalled

MR:

How do you think people would react to that? K accounts aren't free money -- they are amounts individulas chose to save for their retirement.

Our elected representatives generally prefer to stay elected. If 2010 turns out the way it is looking now, those reps are going to be various cautious about doing obviously unpopular things.

Appalled

neo:

If only government subjected itself to the disclosure and auditing requirements it imposes on public companies...

Melinda Romanoff

I agree, but sometimes they have to pass something to find out what's in it.

And it would "fix" SS.

This was the push back in '05 by Miller.

I think they might get hunted in their urban haunts if they pass it.

Neo

The one part of taking over the 401 plans that somebody seems to have forgotten, it that there isn't much money in those plans .. they are invested. They would have to sell of the investments in the world's biggest "fire sale" of all time. It would destroy the stock markets.

Ranger

I recall we talked about the plan around here back in 2008 during the market melt down. As I recall the idea (as outlined in congressional testemony) was to take all 401K money and replace it with special T-bonds that would provide an inflation + 3% return. All future tax exempt retirement investments would be in said special T-bonds as well. The government would sweeten the deal by kicking in the first $600 every year for those who couldn't afford to put into a retirement account.

There are up sides all around for the Feds.

1)The government gets a huge batch of cash in a one off taking.

2)It also forces people to loan money to the Feds at below market rates (to make up for the loss of the SS tax surplus).

3) It ensures (with such paultry returns on their retirement accounts and a confiscatory cap gains tax going into effect) everyone in the country will be dependent on Social Security payments to survive in retimrement.

Its the only way they can hope to sell using general tax revinue to save the panzi scam of SS at this point.

I think if they tried it there would be blood in the streets personally, but who knows at this point.

bgates

OT, but in light of the old quote, "I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game", I thought this article was pretty amusing:
He wants CEOs to bow before him, engage him as though he is a contemporary on the frontlines of industry. Only, the truth of the matter is, he’s a singular talent who’s going to watch his playoff failures start to chip away at the thing that seems to matter most to him: his marketability and magnetism.
Most of all, James is forever selling something of himself – an ideal, an image, a possibility. Something nebulous, something promised. He’s chasing a global platform, the bright, blinking billion-dollar fortune, and he’s largely gotten the natural order of things backward.

Stop strutting, stop preening, stop stomping away as an ungracious winner, a sore loser, and win something, LeBron.

Win something now.
...
What’s he ever won to be so smug to the masses?
...
James still doesn’t understand part of the price of greatness is inviting the burden on yourself and sparing those around you....He was terrible, just terrible, and yet James couldn’t bring himself to say the worst home playoff loss in franchise history began and ended with him.
...
James is too cool, too stubborn and maybe too self-unaware....What you heard out of James was self-righteous: “I put a lot of pressure on myself to go out and be great and the best player on the court. When I don’t, I feel bad for myself.”
...
This collapse will cost people jobs.

Melinda Romanoff

Ranger-

Pre-cisely.

Janet

OT - Here is a chilling video of a Muslim student questioning David Horowitz at UCSD.

IMO our nation has a death wish if we embrace in any way the religion of Islam. Franklin Graham is right.

Rob Crawford

I thought there was going to be some sort of "consumer protection" thing in the financial reform.

There is -- the feds will have the authority to approve and disapprove each attempt you make to finance ANYTHING.

What? You don't see that as protection?

Janet

...oh, sorry LUN.

Rob Crawford

The one part of taking over the 401 plans that somebody seems to have forgotten, it that there isn't much money in those plans .. they are invested.

First, think of how many companies would end up with the government as the primary shareholder! Second, I think they're more interested in reducing everyone to dependence on the government than in actually accomplishing something useful.

Melinda Romanoff

Rob-

They prefer to think of it as "their due".

matt

it is very scary when Robert Samuelson is saying the same things I have been for the past 2 years....LUN

Cecil Turner

Regardless of what you would prefer to hear, would you oppose her nomination on the grounds that she is gay . . .

No. But then I've already decided she's unsupportable due to the military recruitment issue, so she gains nothing by making folks like me happy.

. . . if she established that she would hear no cases involving gay rights?

Why would she recuse herself? For being gay? Forever? Again, horrible answer (and precedent). If she worked on some gay rights issue that was coming before the court, different subject. Otherwise, it's no more appropriate for her to recuse herself than it is for Sotomayor to recuse on cases involving Hispanics (or Clarence Thomas on cases involving African Americans).

matt

viz 401K's, since when did we become Argentina?

macphisto

it was only a detour on the way to Venezuela.

MarkO

I think I proved conclusively that she will swing like a girl. Give it up.

She will be confirmed. She can even lie about her views on the Commerce Clause or anything else with impunity. She could agree to recuse herself from all cases involving the letter "l" and never do it.

Come on. The President has admitted snorting coke. Weed is no disqualification. Sex? Be serious. Lying? About what? How big? Taxes? Gone. Thinks the First Amendment is a balancing test between what she likes and what you like with her rather thick thumb on the scale? Get over it.

Elections matter. I still think that everything should be brought to a standstill until the election. What is the point of getting along with an opposition that is fixing the game to exclude you?

Maybe, just maybe, she could be the focus of the election and with new Senators on board she could be rejected. that is the option. Other than that, there is nothing. Nothing.

DrJ

Rob,

There is -- the feds will have the authority to approve and disapprove each attempt you make to finance ANYTHING.

That's happening in the start-up space as well, where even seed capital has to be approved by the SEC. They must think that those qualified investors are dumb.

Ranger

So now, if someone goes bankrupt on credit card debt and timed loans that were approved by the Feds, can they sue the Fed for allowing them to make those mistakes?

Can the credit holders sue the Feds for what doesn't get paid off in the bankruptcy. It sounds like Fed approval will quickly morph into an implicit government backing for the loan, just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Melinda Romanoff

DrJ_

Accredited Investors.

Ranger-

No, they have to allow you to sue them.

Danube of Thought

I suppose they could impose confiscatory taxes on private retirement accounts

I don't think they could. Such a tax would not be authorized under the 16th Amendment, and I think it would violate the constitutional prohibition against direct taxes (or "capitations").

Dave (in MA)
it is very scary when Robert Samuelson is saying the same things I have been for the past 2 years....LUN

Oh, man. I hate that guy.

<checks link>

No, wait--it's Ulf Samuelsson that I hate.

The people way above my pay grade at work have been telling us that their economic indicators show there's going to be a Nike swoosh-shaped recovery. Being surrounded by a bunch of Ø-bots every day, I can't help but think they're kidding themselves and that we may be looking at an economic curve in the shape of the McDonalds logo, not Nike.

Danube of Thought

Why would she recuse herself?

Why be concerned about her reasoning for doing so? The question is whether those who object to her being gay because she could not be unbiased in gay rights cases--and there are some of them here--would withdraw their objections on that account. So far, I haven't seen a response from any of them to this hypothetical.

Pagar

Janet, another quote from the American Thinker Article

"For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad (from Islam and Modernism)"

This is what all the money the Islamic group has spent at Harvard and other schools is buying them. A western nation that has leaders who feel they must continually apolize for the fact that America has been a world leader, and insure that America is never again considered a world leader.

Jane

I'm here! And I posted Porto at the LUN. i'm a few days behind so the full tale of the Spanish jailbus wis not in it.

Danube of Thought

401(k) plans are creatures of the tax code. To accomplish a goverment takeover of k-plan assets, a condition of the tax-exempt status of the plan could be the investment in some government security or bundle of securities.

It's true that they are "creatures" of the code, but the only right the government has in the investments is the right to collect the income tax on their withdrawal. If they were to repeal the tax deferment tomorrow, that would still give them no greater right to the existing investments.

DrJ

MR,

Of course. Brain fart.

bgates

DoT, a capitation is Constitutional under the condition that it is "in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." If they decide they want to confiscate all private wealth, the only thing that would prevent the current Congress from setting up a capitation equal to the largest sum they could get from any one person's retirement savings, and pairing it with subsidies so that the net effect was to confiscate all private savings, is that I don't think they're that concerned with the pretense of Constitutionality.

boris

"The question is whether those who object to her being gay because she could not be unbiased in gay rights cases--and there are some of them here--"

Guess you believe that but don't see it myself. Perhaps my perception is off ... but then seems to me there is a difference between agenda and bias.

My sense is the concern is more about radical left agenda where being both stealthy and gay could be force multipliers rather than disqualifications.

I don't share that concern much but that's what I pick up from the general mood. CT has more or less persuaded me that she failed the only real test, but other than that I would tend to hope for the best.

Danube of Thought

I agree the taxation portion of SS is less problematic, but what the tax is levied for, a national mandatory pension plan,I have labored in vain many times trying to find any constitutional authorization for.

I think the authorization is right there in the 16th Amendment. It gives the congress a plenary power to tax income, and places no limits on the use to which the tax revenue can be put.

boris

Dot, despite that just before prop 8 passed we differed on likely outcome and I was right, I don't know that you got what I based my prediction on. Not anti gay bias, mine or Ca.

Antimedia

pofarmer writes "More weirdness around Obama's birth certificate."

What does it matter? By federal law he is a native born citizen. The law states (LUN) that if one parent is a citizen and has lived in the US for five years and 2 of those five years were after their 14th birthday, their children are citizens.

That means it doesn't matter where Obama was born. We already know that his mom was a US citizen and meets the criteria for her children to be US citizens no matter where he was born or to whom she was married or even if he's illegitimate.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Antimedia

Sheesh - was supposed to be LUN.

JM Hanes

Clariece:

"Now, if only we could find a real lawyer on the committee to do the questioning...."

I was sorely disappointed in Jeff Sessions' performance during the Sotomayor hearings.

At least we're not looking at Diane Wood, and in the end, I'm not sure that a mediocre liberal is as dangerous as a brilliant one.


Dave (in MA):

"I don't really care whether Judge Blart is a lesbian or not, but I'm enjoying the whole DADT irony part."

Me too. :-)

JM Hanes

It never ceases to amaze me that at the mere whisper of "birth certificate" somebody immediately shows up to roll out the talking points. That, alone, should be enough to make a body wonder.

 centralcal

The best laugh I have had all day. You guys deserve a big guffaw too.

Scroll down.

daddy

Glad to hear you're alive Jane.

Who is Sergio and how tight are his pants?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame